I'd rather drive a garbage truck than fly in the KC-135...

KC-10 FE out...

 

Don’t sweat what some other foreign land did about people’s right under the United States Constitution. San Francisco doesn’t want to be a part of America and they are doing what they can to meet their objectives.

That’s ok by me, you need uneducated people to do stupid things to prove to the masses how stupid something really is. This WILL bite San Francisco in the @ss in the years to come when crime goes up, rapes go up, muggings go up etc.

The ONLY people who follow laws to begin with are “law abiding” citizens. Gun laws are meant for “law abiding” citizens and to make uneducated people feel good…

Criminals are NOT “law abiding” citizens so this new law does NOT affect them whatsoever. People who are uneducated feel very good about themselves today. First because they have got rid of a guaranteed Amendment in the Constitution AND they got to help those they love so much which is criminals.

These uneducated people LOVE criminals like they LOVE terrorist. These are the same idiots that protect them every chance they get and help them out ever chance they get.

Yes my friends there is some partying going on tonight in San Francisco and they are loving how these uneducated idiots just gave them a free pass to pillage the same morons that just hooked them up.

I CAN’T wait to see the crime rates go up, the rapes go up, the muggings go up. It’s what they want, its what they have dreamed about and now they have their wish. Congratulations to the morons that live in San Francisco who have made their dreams come true…


As for the rest of the thinking country here is something to keep in mind when these morons try to take a way a guaranteed Constitutional right:

”Use them or lose them…”

That’s what it could come down to, use your guns or lose them. Hopefully elected officials will realize that and make wise decisions because that is EXACTLY why the Second Amendment even exist, to protect citizens from a few morons trying to get rid of the rights guaranteed to every citizen, there is NO other reason for the Second Amendment and that is a FACT…

 

Not a conspiracy theory at all. It's a fact of history that repeats itself with every nation. Sooner or later something will be the straw that breaks the perverbial camels back.

 

Wasn't San Fran the home to Dirty Harry? Looks like they could use a large dose of the 44 right about now.

2nd amendment is still safe here in Indiana, at least for now. Along with our carry right. But even though I own a business in Chicago, I cannot carry, get a permit to carry, or even have a firearm on the property. Makes it interesting going out to the parking lot at night! Has it stopped anything? No way. A few years ago, I was asked to ID some material that had been stolen from us and recovered in a chop shop raid. During the raid, there were 3 rifles, 4 pistols, a shotgun and armor piercing rounds. Not the Hollywood armor piercing, but true Mil Issue 7.62 NATO rounds. Make a long, long, depressing story short, the guy walked even though we id our property due to a judge who decided that since the warrant was for stolen vehicles, anything else found could not be admitted. In my conversation with the Assistant States Atty, [who giving credit was *&% off and almost got thrown in jail for contempt], he admitted to me that if the perp requested the material back, I would have to give our stolen merchandise back to him. Needless to say, I was not a happy camper and had a few that night


Woof
Bowser

 

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Where does that say anything about handguns? You can still have other firearms in SF correct? It may be a bad law, but hardly unconstitutional.

How many people here have actually used a gun, a hand gun, to protect their own life? (Before anyone goes of on a tear, I like guns and actually have a few trophies for shooting, just answer the question).

 

That is a bogus question.

Have you ever read "More guns less crime" by John Lott.

The sheer possibility of a gun's presence deters crime.

Without going into too much....Areas with liberal carry laws or at least alllow gun ownership have lower rates of crime including burglaries. Criminals know they may meet the business end of a handgun.

Banning guns increases crime because the law abiding citizen is now disarmed.

I can get the statistics but you dont have to brandish a gun or use it to stop a crime. A sticker on a window might be enough or the law allowing gun ownership.

 

Bad question, but I'll answer it this way. Look at D.C. and Chitcago. Both cities have banned handguns and they compete every year for the murder capitol of the US. VT OTOH has no laws regarding firearms and concealed carry. They have the lowest crime rate in the US.

 

Well, again, I'm far from anti-gun and have considered getting back into guns and ask myself the same question (I like to justify my spending to myself). I have never met anyone that needed a gun to protect themselves or their property. I've asked people I've met and on forums like this and I still haven't met anyone. It's an honest, sincere question, just because you can't say you've "needed" your gun doesn't invalidate it.

 

It states it right up above in your own quote. I put the statement your looking for in bold. Handguns fall under the underlined "arms" in the above quote of the Second Amendment.

You see, the Second Amendment means "any" arms. It doesn't specify riffiles, handguns, etc, just "arms"...

 

Not having laws that restrict gun ownership give criminals “pause” before they commit their crimes against others. While this moment of “pause” does not stop all crime a criminal must “always” ask himself ”Does this person have a gun and are they willing to use it on me?”.

Having a law that takes guns from people, which is unconstitutional, takes any moment of “pause” away from a criminal as they know, or at least feel very secure in knowing they can go after “law abiding” citizens and never have to ask themselves:

”Does this person have a gun and are they willing to use it on me?”.

 

I know several people who have used handguns to protect their lives and the life of another brother of mine.

Using the argument that if I haven't used a handgun or you haven't used a handgun to protect life, limb, or property as justification for not needing handguns or allowing them to be banned is indeed a fallacy.

The Constitution and BoR are not a list of rights that we 'have', it's a list of restrictions against our government. We are not 'given' our rights by the constitutions either, they are inalienable, endowed upon us by our creator. They are simply enumerated in the Constitution and BoR as a 'Hey ********, ya'll can't do this" to our elected officials. As time goes by people become lazier and lazier and know less and less about civics and their own rights. Too many people think if the government says 'X' then 'X' must be right.

 

I can certainly see the side of the arguement that says it doesn't specify which guns so you can't limit any, at the same time, not being specific doesn't allow any and all guns. There is no way the people that wrote the Bill of Rights could have any concept of today's weapons. You can say it means ANY, but it doesn't specifically say "ANY". Again, this is not the first city to do this, and the NRA has tried to fight it in the past, and lost. The supreme court takes the lack of specifics to mean that any and all guns are NOT a guarantee, simply the right to own an "ARM" is, technically, holding a knife is being armed. I am certainly not for this law, but the constitution has little to offer you for handgun ownership. Like that other big issue, it's been challenged many times, and it never changes.

And again, How many people here have actually used a gun, a hand gun, to protect their own life?

 

Aside from the reasons stated already about this question being invalid to this subject....let me say this:

....this question is invaild for one main reason......being that if a member on this board were to admit to using a firearm for "protection"......it is quite possible that such admission could be used againt the member in a court of law....so....with that say....I don't think you will get the answer that you are looking for here....in fact....it would be stupid for one to make such an admission.....that is if they value what little "freedom" they have today....

 

Just so you know, the internal pressure in my cranium is rising.

If you're looking for clarification of what the Founding Fathers meant read the Federalist Papers, they spell out everything. You'll run across such quotes as 'No free man shall be debarred the use of arms'. '....same small arms as the standing Army.' etc

FYI --- 'Small arms' are defined as weapons of .50 caliber or less

The case of UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), it was the opinion of the court (and IMO flat out bass ackwards and wholly in error) that firearms NOT of a military design, NOt used by militia forces, etc could be regulated. In laymans terms, the goobermint has ZERO authority to regulate so called 'assault weapons', sawed off shotguns, crew served MGs and the like. Our founding fathers were not stupid men, they knew exactly what they meant when the authored the documetns upon which this country is founded.

You're right. There's also no way that they could have invisioned the internet, mass media, television, CNN, radio and all the other methods of communication now available to us. Does that mean "Free Speech" does not apply to them? It's the same principle. Otherwise "free speech" is restricted to the printing press and word of mouth.

 

Unfortunatley, Arms are broken down into groups as i am not allowed to own rocket or missle launchers. I am not allowed to purchase fully automatic weapons that are manufactured today.

I do believe that if the citizens of this country are not allowed to own firearms, then we need to strip the police and the military of them also, for after all they are citizens too. If they were to be banned, then there would be no need for the police and miltary to have them, as there would be nothing in the publics possesion that they would need them to defend against.

I own a gun or two, i no longer hunt only competition and just plinking, I honestly do not know how i would cope if I were told I could no longer use them. I shoot on average 2-3 time a week. This time of year is a little slow, but after the holidays I will participate in 5 or 6 weekly leagues for 13-15 weeks. through the summer it drops some but not a lot.

I bring this up as if one were to compare with many other things in life, there are many things that one could obtain more readily and do just as much harm, but no one seems to point much of it out. I could go into Wally World and buy an Aluminun baseball bat and come out of the store swinging. But if i go to buy a firearm, i am not allowed to carry it to the register or to the front of the store after I pay for it. Some store actually escort you to your vehicle.

There is a lot of bias in many things, but you rarely see it more than in the case of firearm.

Sorry for the rambling, heck it may not even make much sense or fit in this thread. But after reading through this these were my thoughts.